Barry Brown

The applicant requested the consolidation of two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university.

The respondent opposed consolidation and requested that certain paragraphs of the reprisal application be struck for irrelevance and repetition of previously dismissed allegations.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding it would serve adjudicative economy without prejudicing the respondents.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to strike paragraphs 23 to 30 of the reprisal application, as they were irrelevant to the reprisal claims and re-raised previously dismissed allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether certain complaints should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation that a respondent breached the Code by communicating directly with the applicant, finding no evidence that the respondent knew this violated an accommodation need.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations regarding a short deadline and extension request.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a 'paranoid' comment to proceed and declined to remove the personal respondent.

Certain irrelevant paragraphs of the application were struck.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application would lead to concurrent legal procedures addressing the same issues, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age, claiming he was isolated, denied training, and terminated because he did not speak Vietnamese.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's own evidence contradicted his claims, as other non-Vietnamese speaking employees of Polish origin received the training he was allegedly denied.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could prove a link between his treatment and the alleged Code grounds, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested to defer her human rights application regarding disability accommodation pending the outcome of a reconsideration request and potential judicial review of a related, previously dismissed application concerning workplace harassment.

The Tribunal refused the request to defer, finding that the issues in the two applications were distinct and emphasizing the need to resolve the matter expeditiously given the age of the allegations and the ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an external investigator (the Swan respondents) discriminated against her in preparing a report on her workplace harassment complaint, and that the University discriminated against her by relying on that report.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether adjudicative immunity applied.

The Tribunal found that the Swan respondents acted as neutral, quasi-judicial decision-makers and were therefore protected by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal also found that the claim against the University had no reasonable prospect of success because the University reasonably relied on the investigator's report, which had not been quashed on judicial review.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent hospital refused to accommodate her work restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance that had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance, noting that it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and issues to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and named an individual vice-president as the sole respondent.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the corporate employer, St. Clair College, as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the corporate employer, finding it was in the best position to respond to the allegations regarding the applicant's employment and termination.

Applying the principles from Sigrist and Carson, the Tribunal also removed the individual respondent, as there was no compelling reason to maintain the application against him personally given the corporate respondent's vicarious liability.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, the respondents sought disclosure of the applicant's medical records, including an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the medical records and the IME, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of disability and accommodation.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to redact highly sensitive personal information regarding family relationships from the IME.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file amended witness statements that comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his former employer, the school board, and his union.

The school board and union argued the application was untimely and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the alleged discrimination by the school board well over a year before filing the application, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the union, as there was no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and termination based on disability.

The respondent and the union requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of two related union grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the authority of grievance arbitrators to decide human rights claims.

The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.

The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.

The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.

The South Bruce Grey Health Centre applied to the Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the number and descriptions of bargaining units following the amalgamation of four predecessor hospitals.

The Board ruled that the bargaining units should span all four hospital locations rather than being site-specific, to facilitate administrative and programmatic changes.

Following this ruling, the parties agreed on the descriptions for an all-employees unit, a paramedical unit, and a nurses unit, and representation votes were ordered.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and received weekly income benefits for over four years.

The insurer terminated benefits under the post-156 week test.

The applicant, a young unskilled labourer who underwent a hip replacement, argued he was continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant could no longer perform heavy physical labour, he was capable of performing sedentary work such as light assembly or delivery driving.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was reasonably suited for these jobs by education, training, and experience, and dismissed the claim for ongoing weekly income benefits.

The Applicant was found unconscious and severely injured on a sidewalk and claimed he was struck by a motor vehicle.

The Insurer denied his claim for statutory accident benefits, arguing his injuries resulted from a fall, not a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant was injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule, likely a hit-and-run.

The Applicant was awarded weekly income benefits of $61.63 per week for a specified period, supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services, plus interest and arbitration expenses.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at a producer-owned cannery co-operative.

The employer argued the application should be dismissed because the employees were employed in agriculture, or alternatively, that seasonal workers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board held that although the co-operative processed agricultural products, the industrial nature of the canning work and the separate corporate entity meant the employees were not employed in agriculture.

The Board further held that an all-employee bargaining unit, including seasonal workers, was appropriate, as the seasonal workers shared a sufficient community of interest and their inclusion would not cause serious labour relations problems.

A certificate was issued for the all-employee unit.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to perform electrical work.

The disputed work involved the commissioning of the Environmental Control and Fire Alarm Systems at a hospital project, specifically tasks related to programmable controllers and software verification.

The respondent argued that the commissioning of software was not construction work and therefore fell outside the union's jurisdiction.

The Board held that the commissioning of the systems, including both hardware and software (excluding the use of high-level computer language like Pascal), is part of the construction phase and falls within the ICI provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board found a violation of the agreement and remained seized on the quantum of damages.

The applicant union alleged that the responding school board violated the statutory freeze provision under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by altering the wages and benefits of occasional teachers following certification.

The school board argued that the teachers in question were probationary, not occasional, and thus not covered by the freeze.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the teachers were occasional teachers within the meaning of the Education Act and the collective agreement.

The Board declared that the school board violated the statutory freeze by altering their terms and conditions of employment and ordered full compensation.

The union applied under section 81 of the College Collective Bargaining Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of eight individuals to determine if they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that three individuals were employees within the meaning of the Act, while five were excluded due to their managerial or confidential duties.

One Board member dissented regarding the status of one individual.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning a work assignment dispute.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the grievance was untimely, as it was filed more than 60 days after the disputed work was completed.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(6) of the Act to extend the time limits, finding that the delay was caused by a reasonable mistake regarding the proper grieving party, the employer was aware of the ongoing dispute, and resolving the grievance would benefit the parties' relationship.